“revised return”

Assessment ProceduresSection 139(5)Section 139(5)10,551 judgments

The decision most relied on for revised return is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revised return

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court

349

citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court

205

citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.

109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT

298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing an assessment order after accepting a revised return, the Commissioner acts within their power under section 263 to direct a fresh assessment.

Judgments citing revised return

Sukdeb Mondal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, Ward-15(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2067/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 05.04.2011 for escapement of income. In response to the said notice the assessee filed revised return 2 Sukdeb Mondal, AY- 2007-08 on 27.10.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,69,851/-. During the course of assessment the AO found that

A.C.I.T.-23(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Maharaqshtra State Co.Op, Hsg Fin Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3086/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3086/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

either in the return originally filed by the assessee or thereafter. Ld. DR further submitted that assessee can only revise the claim by filing revised return, however no revised return was filed by the assessee. Ld. DR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... revision of income which is 5 I.T.A. No. 3086/Mum/2016 M/s Maharashtra State Co-Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. not allowed except by filing revised return as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld. DR further submitted that assessee had kept surplus funds with other cooperative societies and thus the interest

Sarang & Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Ita Nos. 1227 To 1229/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2009-10) M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ 302, Shabnam Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-36, 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafs0638J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

under Sec. 143(2) was served on it on 18.05.2010. The assessee after receiving the notice under Sec. 143(2) came forth with a revised return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.33,56,030/-. 22. The A.O while framing the assessment observed that in the course

Kishore Kumar Kataruka, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot & ChandniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

declaring total income to the tune of Rs.5,26,470/- for the assessment year of 2008-2009. Thereafter, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 30.03.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.5,26,470/-. The return was processed

DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai vs. Naresh B. Vora, Mumbai

ITA 4430/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4430/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri T. A. Khan, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80

case as recorded by AO are that the assessee filed its Return of Income on 31.10.1997 admitting taxable income of Rs. 78,804/-. A revised return of income was filed on 31.10.1997 disclosing income of Rs. 10,62,340/- wherein the assessee withdrew the deduction u/s 80-IA claimed

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing the Provision ICICI Securities made during the assessment proceedings without filing revised return. The appellant prays that the claim for the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt amounting to Rs.7,88,59,626/- made by the appellant ... allowing the Provision for FBT on the alleged ground that the claim has been made during the assessment proceedings without filing revised return. Appellant prays that the claim for the Provision for FBT amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the Appellant in the course of the Assessment

Niru Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Niru Impex, Dcit- (Osd-1) Central 112/115 The Jewel, Opera Range-7 Vs. House, Tata Rd-2, Mumbai. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aacfn2800K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

firm will accordingly pay the taxes on the additional income and will voluntarily offer the same for taxation with interest and file the revised return for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. A regular return will be filed for AY 2009-10, which is due on 30.09.2009 by offering

DCIT vs. Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed while the Cross

ITA 92/PAT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 92/Pat./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Income-Tax, Circle-4, 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Patna Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Co No. 01/Pat./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Income-Tax, Circle-4, Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. K. N. Prasad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68

filed his return on 10.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.8,88,720/-, over receipt of Rs.2,71,38,163/- from the contract works. The revised return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 21.08.2011. the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS ‘Computer Assisted Selection of Cases

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sharda Worldwide Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3804/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Beswal/Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja -DR

Section 254(1)

original return of income,had capitalised the PRE,that it had claimed depreciation at the rate of 25% for such expenses,that in the revised return it claimed the PRE (Rs. 17.45 crores) as revenue expenditure. It was claimed that the deduction was made on the basis of judgments ... held that the assessee had made the nuclear after filing its return of income, that claim was not made by filing a valid revised return, that such a claim could not be considered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in the case of Goetze

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3594/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आिकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3594/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Gateway Terminals India Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer 5(1)(2) Gti House Aaykar Bhawan बिाम/ Jawaharlal Nehru Port M.K.Road Vs. Sheva, Uran Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 707 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-1899-E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Kiran Nisar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 14/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Kiran Nisar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37(1)

which was added to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act but was later withdrawn in the revised return of income filed by the assessee with the revenue. The assessee had claimed that these are business losses arising out of cost of obsolescence and loss on account of obsolete

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane vs. A.C. Chenna Reddy, Panvel

ITA 1850/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle-2 Shri A.C. Chenna Reddy बनाम/ Thane Pawar Industrial Shivaji Nagar, Village Estate, Edulji Road Gavhan, Panvel 410 206 Vs. Charai, Mumbai 400 601 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acdpa3902G Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri A.C. Chenna Reddy Acit, Central Circle-2 Flat No.103, Manisha Tower बनाम/ Thane Pawar Industrial Tata Colony, Mulund (E) Estate, Edulji Road Vs. Mumbai 400 081 Charai, Mumbai 400 601 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acdpa3902G

notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that in spite of repeated and sufficient opportunity the assessee neither filed the revised return of income nor furnished the required details. Thus, summon u/s 131 of the Act was issued to the assessee which was also not complied with

ITO, WD-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Consortium Capital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1339/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

head of income was not acceptable in the absence of any 3 I.T.A. No. 1339/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Consortium Capital Pvt. Ltd. revised return filed by the assessee. He accordingly treated the loss of Rs. 97,17,719/- suffered by the assessee in share trading as speculation loss ... relying on the judgment of Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) where it was held that no new claim can be made without filing any valid revised return. On this issue reference may be made in the case of CIT s Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 22 where

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Mazda Concrete Products (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, FCA ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CITDR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(7)

total income of Rs.1,39,47,330/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) on 15.07.2011. Subsequently the assessee company has filed revised return of income on 22.03.2011 showing total income of Rs.Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s.143 ... assessee has shown closing stock as per the original return 3 of income of Rs.29,26,84,583/-. Subsequently the assessee company has filed revised return of income showing closing stock of Rs.32,77,09,100/- and total income as Rs.NIL. On comparison of the both the returns of income

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 751/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

additions/disallowances, there was an addition on account of undisclosed cash receipt of Rs. 46,00,000/- which was declared by the assessee in the revised return filed after the survey proceedings. The AO initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect ... contended that as regards the penalty levied against the undisclosed income on account of unexplained deposit made of Rs. 46,00,000/- in the revised return of income, it was not a voluntary disclosure by the assessee but the assessee has disclosed this amount only after a survey was conducted

Dilip Kumar Seraogi HUF, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward No-48(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1959/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Dilip Kumar Seraogi Huf…..……………………...……………………..……….Appellant 134, Salkia School Road Sukhi Sansor, Block-E Flat No. 218, Salkia Howrah – 711 106 [Pan : Ahhpd 7072 M] Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-48(4), Kolkata…..…………….…….……...Respondent 3, Government Place (W) Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 7Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 9Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250

wholesale dealing in cloth items. He filed its return of income on 20/08/2011, declaring total income at Rs.8,25,828/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on 22/08/2011 and yet another revised return on 21/12/2011. The last revised return filed on 21/12/2011, was processed